output-inputppt输出inputppt.pptVIP

Should Mirror Operations Be Dropped? David BoothW3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Current Status Four Message Exchange Patterns (MEPs): Input-Output (was Request-Response) Input-Only (was One-Way) Output-Input (was Solicit-Response) Output-Only (was Notification) Mirror ops: Output-Input, Output-Only Problems with Mirror Ops Multiple interpretations: event? callback? Little evidence of use Where to get the Clients address? Inconsistent treatment of Faults? Input-Output: Fault is an alternate Output Input-Only:? (no Faults) Output-Input: Fault is an alternate Input Output-Only: (no Faults) What I Did Abstract analysis: Suppose we used WS descriptions in a larger context.? Would we want mirror ops? Example: Markets Potential Application: Markets Markets Shared Service Descriptions Shared: One WSDL per Service Shared: Referencing a Common T Shared: Client, Service Ref T Shared: Role-Specific Descriptions Shared: Conclusion Complementary Service Descriptions Complementary: Observation Complementary: Identity-Specific Info Conclusions Mirror ops add flexibility Identity-specific info (address) should be separated from shared info Other binding info can be shared:transport protocol, etc. END WSDL Information Sharing From most shared to least shared: Message types Message direction (input/output) Transport protocol, Message encoding Address (Not shared!) The least shared info should be latest bound Observations on MEPs MEPs MEP: Bs View MEP: Bs View MEP: Bs View MEP: As View 1 MEP: As View 2 MEP: As View 3 MEP: As View 4 MEPs Are Relative MEPs Are Relative MEPs Are Relative Role-Specific Information Role-Specific Information Role-Specific Information Role-Specific Information Service B Service A Suppose: A must send B messages in format X X represents message format definition A, B reference X X contains role-specific information, e.g., in (from Bs perspective) A, B use the same software T to generate Sender and Receiver from X Receiver Sender X in T Service B